sew.excited73
Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
No, they are, but weren’t during the Covid propaganda broadcasts.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Suppression of Free Speech on Covid
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
sew.excited73
Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
I am so sorry to hear that, because I know it is very hard to find any doctors who will believe you when you say it comes from the jabs.
I would advise not to mention it at all and just present your symptoms as they are and let them work it out without the clue of what caused it, because people who say something are immediately put in the ‘anti-vax’ box… eventhough you are clearly not, as you took them!
It’s just a crazy upside down world right now.
Hang in there! Sending you lots of love and prayers.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
This looks as believable as the Chat GPT answer you posted the other day.The other day, we reported that eight of the 62 (not 68 as was originally reported) people who died in the recent ATR 72 turboprop plane crash in Sao Paulo, Brazil, were doctors headed to an important oncology conference. It has since come out that six of these eight were also scientists who planned to expose mRNA (modRNA) "vaccines" as a cause of turbo cancer.
Doctors killed in Brazilian plane crash promised to release evidence tying mRNA “vaccines” to TURBO CANCER – NaturalNews.com
The other day, we reported that eight of the 62 (not 68 as was originally reported) people who died in the recent ATR 72 turboprop plane crash in Sao Paulo, Brazil, were doctors headed to an important oncology conference. It has since come out that six of these eight were also scientists who...www.naturalnews.com
Ad Fontes Media rates Natural News in the Hyper-Partisan Right category of bias and as Unreliable, Misleading in terms of reliability. Natural News is a blog that features articles about science and health. Its motto is “Defending health, life and liberty.” Its content has been cited as being false and based on conspiracy theories. The site was launched in 2008 by Mike Adams.
Overall Score
The following are the overall bias and reliability scores for Natural News according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.Reliability: 9.27
Bias: 28.10
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, anyone with even mediocre observation skills can see that there is a link to the original paper below the text.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Even the conspiracy freaks don't believe this one, because of fluent puppies.Dr. Mike Yeadon on Ivermectin
Dr. Mike Yeadon Ivermectin Anti-Fertility Bombshell: "One Of The Most Violent Fertility Toxins"
Renowned pharmacologist Dr. Mike Yeadon has dropped a massive Ivermectin bombshell, calling it “one of the most violent fertility toxins” he’s ever seen. His comments were recorded back in June 2024 brumble.com
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Sorry everybody is still required to sign a consent form and you are more than welcome to follow up on your own but maybe you didn't read the form.FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0000054 = 2021, thus not years before 2020, I am afraid. So, there is just no way of knowing how this is going to affect people 3, 5, or 10 years later (yet). Why don’t people just not get that? Is it their confirmation bias after having taken the jabs, and not wanting to see any normal, simple, common sense anymore as that would mean admitting that they might have made a horrible mistake? It might not have been a mistake. Nothing bad might happen to anyone at all… but that is not the point! The point is, people were not warned about any possibility of risk at all and in case of mandates or other such schemes were even bullied into complying, rather than giving the choice on what they felt was best for themselves. These were not normal vaccines, that’s the point.
I personally feel that governments should not be allowed to make these decisions for us. It is down to each patient and their doctor to come to the best decision for that person. It’s their life to risk, not the government’s. The government doesn’t own us, they work for us.
Also, did anyone, in the government, or speaking as scientific advisor, during their public mainstream media ‘propaganda’ mention any of these risk written down?
Did your doctors, before they gave you the shot? Or did they just shove a piece of paper like this with all kinds of medical terms that no non-medical person would be expected to understand under their nose (probably after administration of the jab) and send them on their merry way.
I wish I could remember the threshold at which vaccines would normally be recalled when causing damage… I need to look that up again tomorrow as I wouldn’t want to state the wrong information, but 10 per 10,000 is basically 1 in 1000, and that seems to be very near or above that threshold for me, but I could be wrong, as I said will see if I can find that tomorrow, I need to sleep now. Goodnight everyone
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
We don't know because we don't have a time machine to tell us about the future details. Best we can do is look at the adverse effects that exist right now and act on that.
IMO it's about faith in government and the vanity that supports that faith.
I'd argue that they don't even meet the original definition of a vaccine. Informed consent of citizens is irrelevant when the state is acting according to security protocols as would be the case for an actual pandemic where there was a significant threat of harm. Of course the actual threat posed by the "pandemic" was hardly worse than the seasonal flu, with hospital staff taking up dancing and theatre instead of busying themselves with patients.
Persons don't have any basis on which to challenge government policy. People, on the other hand, can asset natural rights and can make a case against government agents for their "safe and effective" fraud.
AFAIK they did not.
Some doctors did not toe the line and were censured for that.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
and anyone with even rudimentary reading skills can see that what was in the second link is not from the actual report
sew.excited73
Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
I did read the form, and I was better informed than most because I actually understood what it really meant. Most people didn't and just trusted the government wouldn't omit important information from them and that they knew 100% for sure for a fact that what they were telling people was the absolute 'unchangeable' factual truth, and thus they took the jabs.
I am not an anti-vaxer... I am not even against the covid-vax... I am just against 'making' people take any medical intervention, especially when I know that most people didn't understand the full extent of their decision. I am also against gaslighting people who claim to have side-effects from the jabs that didn't go away within a few days or weeks, because if a person tells the doctor it comes from the jab noone believes them (anymore).
I think this might be caused because of the scaremongering by anti-vaxers getting to too many people, and the people who fell for the anti-vax story are saying the same thing to their doctors when they have in fact no evidence for it having come from the vax at all... so doctors hear it too often when there is no good reason for it and they get 'satiated' by hearing it so often, that they start to dismiss it - even when people actually do have a solid reason to point at the vax.
I feel really bad for the people who really had an issue, as they are now no longer believed by the people they need most to help them
Last edited:
sew.excited73
Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
Absolutely! Totally agree, noone has a time machine, not even the scientists, and that's exactly why they should have allowed people bodily autonomy to make the decisions best for them (with the help of their physician, if needed).
Of course, had this been an actual pandemic with a much higher mortality rate (other than the already vulnerable, who should of course shield anyway), I could be persuaded to take a different stance on this. But that wasn't the case here.
I can understand the difficulty the government and scientist were in in the beginning, when it was still unknown which way the mutations would go, as there were basically four options:
1. The r could go up, so it would basically spread faster. But when it spreads faster it would become far less deadly (this is what happened, and was scientifically the more likely outcome); OR
2. The r could go down, but... if you get the disease it would become more deadly. (scientifically slightly less likely, but it would have a far greater impact on illness outcome so it's more severe and therefore this has to be considered as a very serious option); or
3. Both the r go up and it also becomes more severe (This was FAAAR less likely, because as far as I know it, this has never happened before. Likelihood would not be zero though, but extremely unlikely); and
option 4. neither go up (also less likely).
So during Alpha stage, governments were still battling with both option 1 and 2 as a possibility, which means they had to act fast and more drastically; by the time the first mutation had established itself however, it was clear which way this would run its course. Some of the decisions made after that, were, let's say, less solidly founded in science and good judgement - in my humble opinion. Having said that, throwing long-covid into the mix obviously complicates things somewhat.
Last edited:
sew.excited73
Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
Absolutely, they changed the dictionary definitely basically, to gaslight the people into thinking this was a 'normal' vaccine. Noone ever explained clearly what mRNA meant, otherwise people would have understood it was still a very infantile/experimental treatment, rather than a normal vaccine. Still most people would have trusted the 'experts' and the government and decided to take it anyway (like I did), but they wouldn't have hit their 90%+ uptake, like they did now.
For most people it worked out OK, but for those it didn't they must feel very deceived! (Especially for those who did sign an informed consent form, but weren't actually as informed as the had needed to be).
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You seriously don't know what you're talking about as the use of the Scientific Method is to try and eliminate reliance on hearsay and institutional bias. And we have no "priests" in science, so when you post such nonsense, you only demean your own position.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What?
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Predictably, your vapid response is entirely fact-free.
"They were priests in vestments of white coats, tortoiseshell specs and pocket protectors. We didn't criticise them. We didn't engage with them – we bowed down before them."
Science: the religion that must not be questioned | Henry Gee
Henry Gee: Scientific experiments don't end with a Holy Grail so much as an estimate of probability. The Truth, with a capital T, is forever just beyond one's grasp
"My colleagues felt that we reported on published papers without significant analysis, depth or critical comment: we just translated what scientists said."
"You could say that this is not exactly a description of a journalist — more that of a priest, taking information from a source of authority and communicating it to the congregation."
Science journalism: Toppling the priesthood - Nature
In the first of three essays, Toby Murcott argues that the process of science needs to be opened up if journalists are to provide proper critique.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I badly broke my right (dominant) elbow during the pandemic, requiring an elbow replacement. They had to completely staff an entire ward even though I was the only person on the ward because most replacements were considered optional surgery (but mine wasn't). I waited and waited and waited for ANYTHING. Don't let me ring that buzzer!
I even had to wait on my meals (like 2 hours so it wasn't just a small time I was waiting around). The nurses and even the doctor were all pretty irritated at having to be there. I mean, like it was obvious, and I was the one in pain and REALLY not wanting to be there. And no, I don't think they were being diverted from busy COVID wards - most of the hospital was shut completely down. We actually had very few COVID cases that were hospitalized.
Last edited:
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Changing a definition introduces ambiguity, and ambiguity is not interpreted in favour of the one who first uses ambiguous language (contra proferentem). Trust in government is central to the security relationship between the state and the citizen, so to unwrap this the nature of that relationship should be examined.
The logo of the W.H.O. provides some clues, as it relates to Moses as healer.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
John 3:14
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Reports of Batch-Dependent Suspected Adverse Events of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: Comparison of Results from Denmark and Sweden
www.mdpi.com
Reports of Batch-Dependent Suspected Adverse Events of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: Comparison of Results from Denmark and Sweden
Background and Objective: An unexpected batch-dependent safety signal for the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was recently identified in a nationwide study from Denmark, but the generalizability of this finding is unknown. Therefore, we compared batch-dependent rates of suspected adverse events...
www.mdpi.com
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
You are really grasping at straws here.Reports of Batch-Dependent Suspected Adverse Events of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: Comparison of Results from Denmark and Sweden
Reports of Batch-Dependent Suspected Adverse Events of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: Comparison of Results from Denmark and Sweden
Background and Objective: An unexpected batch-dependent safety signal for the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was recently identified in a nationwide study from Denmark, but the generalizability of this finding is unknown. Therefore, we compared batch-dependent rates of suspected adverse events...
this is a report on one batch of covid 19 vaccine that produced an increased amount of suspected adverse reactions. In Sweden this patch produces a total of 28 suspected adverse reactions. Wow. all of the suspected adverse reactions were classes as mild. Mild reactions for injections are: Soreness at injection sight, headache, fatigue and muscle aches.
Worse the author's of the study say that what they found can't be connected to the vaccine and there is no indication that the vaccine even from this one batch was actually at fault. "we emphasize that our results are preliminary and hypothesis-generating, given the inherent limitations of spontaneous SAE reporting systems like the DKMA and SMPA. Notably, such passive reporting systems may capture < 15% of SAEs [22]. Also, the current data were incomplete and subject to variable quality information, and factors such as vaccine efficacy, pre-existing immunity and booster schedules, and clinical details and long-term effects of reported SAEs were not examined."
McBell
Admiral Obvious
It is painfully obvious that some people do not read their source material before presenting it...